No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

TM

Translation: I am a goal keeper's dad.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Translation: I am a goal keeper's dad.

Nicely done. Although, the goalkeeper really just wants to get the game going again.

TM

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Nicely done. Although, the goalkeeper really just wants to get the game going again.

TM

Did the other guy get a yellow for time wasting?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

Did the other guy get a yellow for time wasting?

Good question. This is all I got and it ain't an answer:

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=4154

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=4155

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=4156

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=4157

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=4158

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=4159

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=4160

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=4161

TM

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

While I'm inclined to think that Spirit's claim of copyright infringement against Led Zeppelin is pretty bogus, even if it's true, why would Spirit (or the lead singer's estate) be entitled to anything more than a small portion of the royalties derived from Stairway to Heaven? The song is a lot more than just the opening chords.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

While I'm inclined to think that Spirit's claim of copyright infringement against Led Zeppelin is pretty bogus, even if it's true, why would Spirit (or the lead singer's estate) be entitled to anything more than a small portion of the royalties derived from Stairway to Heaven? The song is a lot more than just the opening chords.

F'd if I know.

Also, how do they get to wait this long to bring a claim?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

F'd if I know.

Also, how do they get to wait this long to bring a claim?

Good question - I don't know what the StatLim is for copyright, but would guess they can only collect royalties starting some number of years before filing the complaint, not all the way back to 1971 or whenever the song was released.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

Good question - I don't know what the StatLim is for copyright, but would guess they can only collect royalties starting some number of years before filing the complaint, not all the way back to 1971 or whenever the song was released.

3 years SOL, and that should limit how far back they can collect (each time it is played tolls a new start date). I don't get why laches isn't an issue. There is a SCt case saying laches cannot kick in if the claim is brought within the SOL, but that case (Raging Bull) was brought within 3 years of the claim first kicking in, so it doesn't explain how you can wait 40 years.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

3 years SOL, and that should limit how far back they can collect (each time it is played tolls a new start date). I don't get why laches isn't an issue. There is a SCt case saying laches cannot kick in if the claim is brought within the SOL, but that case (Raging Bull) was brought within 3 years of the claim first kicking in, so it doesn't explain how you can wait 40 years.

Well, point moot now anyway. https://twitter.com/AP/status/746029760896208896

One article I read said the suit was tirggered by release of a remastered version of Stairway in 2014 or so.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

Well, point moot now anyway. https://twitter.com/AP/status/746029760896208896

One article I read said the suit was tirggered by release of a remastered version of Stairway in 2014 or so.

in patent law there is a 6 year sol, so you can only go back for sales in the 6 years before suit. But there is also a laches defense, that if it kicks in, takes all $$ damages off the table. and there is equitable estoppel that kicks in if you give a defendant the impression you do not intend to act. the Spirit guy apparently said he was okay with the copying in 1990, so I don't get how that wouldn't win.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

in patent law there is a 6 year sol, so you can only go back for sales in the 6 years before suit. But there is also a laches defense, that if it kicks in, takes all $$ damages off the table. and there is equitable estoppel that kicks in if you give a defendant the impression you do not intend to act. the Spirit guy apparently said he was okay with the copying in 1990, so I don't get how that wouldn't win.

Interesting. Maybe the judge was holding back rulings to see if the jury would find for LZ?

ETA: Nope. According to this the judge apparently ruled that the rerelease in 2014 meant laches didn't apply.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...kes-me-wonder/

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

Interesting. Maybe the judge was holding back rulings to see if the jury would find for LZ?

ETA: Nope. According to this the judge apparently ruled that the rerelease in 2014 meant laches didn't apply.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...kes-me-wonder/

yes, the Supremes appear to have taken laches out of copyright law.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

yes, the Supremes appear to have taken laches out of copyright law.

Laches? They don't need to show you no sinking laches. They are federales.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

Laches? They don't need to show you no sinking laches. They are federales.

There's some sort of irony in TaxWonk making a timely post about laches.